Monday, October 10, 2011

Art Dodging

L.G.C. Smith

Very few of the fiction writers I know define themselves as artists. Most of us write popular fiction, which lots of people think is anti-art by definition. We’d have to be gluttons for public derision to stand up and say, “Yes, I’m a literary artist, and my preferred form is the cozy.” Yet, to my well-trained eye (all those degrees, research, and years spent teaching in universities occasionally add up to something), many popular fiction writers produce exquisite novels of substance, style, and beauty. Many of them are, gasp, the lowest of the low: Romance writers. Eek. Surely everybody knows you can’t be an artist if you’re writing romance.

Most of my writer friends distance themselves from viewing their work as art. In fact, a reputation as an artist in the world of working writers seems to carry more negative connotations than positive. The writer as artist is frequently perceived as having great faith in his own talent and skill (arrogance). He is dedicated to his own vision (lacking in perspective and awareness of audience, as well as being resistant to revision and editing). He is more sensitive than the average person (defensive and unable to take criticism of any sort), and subject to the whims of his frequently absent muse (doesn’t make deadlines and doesn’t give his editor a heads up). The writer as artist is, in short, a pain in the butt. He is not professional.

Several months ago I had an experience that brought home to me that without realizing it, I’ve drifted into viewing writers who think of themselves as artists as amateurs. I do a little freelance editing on the side, and I happened across a piece of ‘literary fiction,’ repped by a well-regarded agent, and worthy in many of the ways that popular fiction is generally assumed not to be. It was exactly the kind of book I could see being heralded as ‘art.’ I found many flaws in the manuscript. Really big, story level problems that had a lot to do with the lack of narrative skill, motivation, conflict . . . basic stuff.

I found myself thinking that if the piece had been popular fiction, I would never tolerate such sloppy work. But since it was literary, well, maybe it didn’t matter. Standards aren’t as high. Literary writers do all sorts of clumsy things in the name of art. A lot of literary writers are good at capturing a poignant moment or an arresting insight, and wrapping them up with catchy metaphors, analogies and whatnot. But, in my estimation, if that’s all you’ve got, and you can’t put your language skills to good use at the story level, too, you’re an amateur.

I caught myself. Standards aren’t as high. In literary fiction. Really? Did I really just think that? It’s the complete opposite of the party line still believed by a lot of teachers, librarians, professors, and people who think about the relative merits of different types of fiction. It’s the opposite of what I was taught.

How did I come to this?

By reading a lot. Writing a lot. Teaching writing a lot. Teaching readers how to critique texts. Doing research in literacy communities, including non-academic ones like those of romance readers and writers. Talking to readers and writers of many sorts. Writing scores of novel reviews. Talking to other professors, teachers and librarians who find a wide range of popular fiction as meaningful, valuable and artful as good literary fiction. Listening to editors and agents. All that and more.

The issue isn’t that some literary fiction is amateurish. Of course, it is. That’s true of every genre. The issue is that there is such a rich array of art in the places where, as communities of readers, we still find it generally accepted that there isn’t much of value. Have those writers who have been barred from the Art Party created a successful dodge around how literary art is defined? It can be pretty convincing.

It wasn’t cool for me to allow a lower standard for that piece of literary fiction. I would be angry if an editor approached my books with the attitude that ‘it’s only romance, so why try to make it good.’ Everyone will be relieved to know that I revised my approach. All the literary fiction that comes my way receives the best edit I can offer, bringing to bear all I’ve learned about what makes an artful story.

I’m curious how the rest of your see your writing—is it art? Do you have prejudices against applying that word to fiction like I do? Are there other considerations that keep writers from self-identifying as artists? Or do you see yourself as an artist and your fiction as art? What do those words mean in terms of your writing? There’s a lot of contested territory here.

13 comments:

Adrienne Miller said...

This might be the most brilliant thing I have read all year. I've always shied away thinking about my work as art mostly because its just that--work. Work I love, but still work.
I've never had trouble seeing the skill in other people's work, especially in romance, but I don't think that I ever called it art. I'm not sure why, but that word has always intimidated me. Maybe because it seems inaccessible, and, to me, the romance genre is anything but.

Juliet Blackwell said...

This is an incredible post -- such an interesting topic! I wonder: do we think of our writing as more Craft than Art? As Rachael mentioned last week, could Craft be seen as a really approachable, useable, everyday sort of art -- as opposed to "high" art that belongs in museums, intelligible only to a rarefied few? I do think of myself as a creative artist in both my painting AND my writing, but if I call my books my ART it makes them sound boring and unintelligible...James Joyce, anyone? ;-)

Gigi Pandian said...

It might be a graphic designer thing, but we call ourselves "creatives," and I like that description for all of my artistic pursuits, be it design, photography, or writing.

Sophie Littlefield said...

great post - and i love the idea of calling ourselves "creatives" - and YES, i do aspire to be artful when i work. But I think you can bring such an aspiration to so many things. I think the artist has a responsibility: to know enough about what has come before to understand her own work in a historical context; to understand what is being currently done, including the bleeding edges, to push herself; and to dig deeply for what is unique in order to contribute something worthy to the world. This could be done by....a chef, i imagine, or an engineer, but it can also be done by ME every time i write a book. I don't shy away from the term "artist" and I sure don't let any other group "own" it.

Rachael Herron said...

I am bookmarking this. Also, you are next on my list to be tapped for a critical read of this women's fiction ms. I *need* you. You are so flipping SMART.

L.G.C. Smith said...

I had a long response to all of you, and blogger ate it. Wah! I'll try again after I get more work done.

Lisa Hughey said...

I like the word CREATIVE. Such a thought provoking and insightful post about how we view our own work and career. Thanks for this LGC!!

Shira said...

I tend to use the phrase "crap that vomits from my fingers" to describe my writing. It helps me to not continual edit as I write and instead edit afterwards when I make it "less craptastic." However, I've always enjoyed the idea of "crafting" writing.

Shira said...

AND I didn't proof read my comment and it wont let me edit it... "continually edit" **takes a bow**

Tom Neely said...

Living in the songwriting world, I've known a lot of artists and man, they're a collective piece of work. To me, there's always been an "emperor's new clothes" aspect to their songs and their bands. And what always blew me away was the crowds that these artist lead bands could draw. I was amazed that people didn't seem to mind that the songs were eye-rollingly crappy and the musicians were okay at best. In fact, the crowds really seemed to enjoy that about the music because it was "art" and if I didn't like it, then I didn't get. I *do* get it and I've got a big enough mouth to call it what it is.

Sorry, got a little ranty there.

Oh.....I see my own writing as serious, hard work that I love. :^)

Jeorge Mackay said...

To finalise, Sunday payday loans are a best suggested financial aid which shows lender’s consciousness for their borrowers. Such kind of loans shows lender’s positive attitude towards borrowers and their needs in every situation and know more about our services please visit us saturday payday loans.

http://sundaypaydayloans.directlendersuk.co.uk/
http://12monthloans.directlendersuk.co.uk/
http://weekendpaydayloans.directlendersuk.co.uk/
http://weeklypaydayloans.directlendersuk.co.uk/

Richard Bach said...

In short, 1000 pound loans are a timely money support. Also, these are a stress buster which doesn’t let you have stress under any condition. To Find my other services please visit us.

http://www.poundstillpayday1hr.co.uk/
http://www.paydayloansdirectlenders24hrs.co.uk/
http://www.uk6monthpaydayloans.co.uk/
http://www.shorttermloansdirectlenders.co.uk/

Richard Bach said...

In short, 1000 pound loans are a timely money support. Also, these are a stress buster which doesn’t let you have stress under any condition. To Find my other services please visit us.

http://www.poundstillpayday1hr.co.uk/
http://www.paydayloansdirectlenders24hrs.co.uk/
http://www.uk6monthpaydayloans.co.uk/
http://www.shorttermloansdirectlenders.co.uk/